Wednesday, January 04, 2012

The Progressive Inner City Classroom

One of the problems of educating poor children in modern society is that the students who try to learn, to better themselves so that they can move up in society and become a contributor instead of a parasite, is the savage peer-resistance they face. Thomas Sowell has written about this pernicious influence in the United States among black students who accuse high achievers among them of "acting white." But it's not a racial issue. Theodore Dalrymple writes of the same pathology in British schools.

What did they mean by this apparent paradox? They meant that anyone who tried hard at school and performed well was wasting his time, when he could have been engaged in the real business of life, such as truanting in the park or wandering downtown. Furthermore, there was menace in their words: If you don't mend your ways and join us, they were saying, we'll beat you up. This was no idle threat: I often meet people in their twenties and thirties in my hospital practice who gave up at school under such duress and subsequently realize that they have missed an opportunity which, had it been taken, would have changed the whole course of their lives much for the better. And those who attend the few schools in the city which maintain very high academic standards risk a beating if they venture to where the poor white stupids live. In the last year, I have treated two boys in the emergency room after such a beating, and two others who have taken overdoses for fear of receiving one at the hands of their neighbors.

Peer pressure, especially when it's violently negative, as adults know, and as we try to encourage our own children to avoid, has a tremendous effect on a child's education. Study and hard work that leads to beatings and hospitalization is a powerful incentive for giving up. The future parasites do not allow anyone in their domain to rise above that setting. Everybody must remain equal, that is, equally stupid, equally poor, equally miserable, and equally a drain on society.

Among Progressives, we are being taught to abhor differences in wealth among Americans. The distribution of wealth, we are told, is too skewed in favor of the rich. This is something new and dangerous to society. This inequality is bad news. In the name of fairness, wealth needs to be redistributed. If you are too successful, and you make too much money, you can be threatened. If you are an oil executive, you can be hauled before Congress and paraded before the American public in a glorious show trial. And to Progressives, this kind of harassment is not only acceptable, but noble. Because some people are poor, and some work hard for very little money, those who make a lot of money must justify their wealth. Businessmen who have made an honest living and have committed no crimes can be vilified and threatened by our elected officials because they're not equal, because they've used their talents are resources to rise economically above the rest of us. As our president has told us, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." How much money is enough? He didn't say. But we can assume that above a certain amount, you qualify for a beat down.

The really perverse part of this mode of thought, is that I'm pretty sure that it's shared among Obama's wealthy supporters. We know though, that as long as they keep funneling a portion of their lunch money to Obama's reelection campaign and other causes that he supports, they can never make enough money. Some capitalist oppressors are more equal than others.

And if it's not the president bullying us into poverty, it's an environmental group. How much bullying does it take before the wealth creators give up and leave the rest of us to sink into equality? Once we have an entire society of parasites though, who does that society feed off of? We only have each other.

It's no wonder the Left sides so adamantly with Islamists. They to want equality, at least their Islamic version of equality, you know, Muslim males most equal, infidel females least equal . . .

I wrote all of the above back in August. And since then, I've ignored my blog. I started posting a comic strip, but once school started, I didn't have time to draw. Between school, tutoring, non-blog pro-Israel activity, and going to the gym, who's got time to draw?

But getting back on topic, the rise of the OWS movement has proven everything I've written. There is a sample here. Make sure you watch the video. My question at the beginning is, what are they so afraid of that they refuse to cooperate with a conservative web-based news service?

Am I back? Who knows? Who cares? If I have time (ha!) I will continue my amateurly drawn comic strip.

2 Comments:

Hello, Harry! I don't get why really rich people would want to support some of these "Democratic" principles of extreme wealth redistribution, either, and I suppose it DOES make about as much sense as to why they would also support militant Islamists.

I think a fair government does need to look out for its citizens whether through *some* wealth redistribution (think: prevent Oliver Twist/Hard Times situations in the extreme) or through job programs. But I'm nervous about how some of these execs are hauled before the boards as well. There is a medium (maybe not a happy one, but one anyway) there somewhere.

I think rich AND poor can both pay taxes and part of our problem is that poor folks are voting for basically OTHER people to be taxed. I don't mean everyone should pay exactly x dollars, but that if everyone has to pay something, everyone hopefully will think twice before spending.

From what I've been reading, some of the rich executives get "favors" from Obama. A really good expose that won't make into the mainstream press is at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286704/repo-men-kevin-d-williamson?pg=1

Wealth redistribution makes me nervous for a lot of reasons, mostly because I don't have that much wealth to redistribute, what I do have I work for, and it's used to buy the votes of the poor.

"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises